\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Rates of support for Black and white candidates in conjoint task by ideological congruence with the participant relative to their opponent.}
\centering
\fontsize{9}{11}\selectfont
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}[t]{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{1.8cm}>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{3.5cm}>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.5cm}>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{3.5cm}>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.5cm}>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{3.5cm}}
\toprule
Relative congruence & Rate of support for Black candidates & Weight -ed N & Rate of support for white candidates & Weight -ed N & Black - white difference\\
\midrule
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Results presented in paper}}\\
\hspace{1em}-1.00 & 0.22** (0.101) & 20.61 & 0.31 (0.114) & 16.10 & 0.091 (0.158)\\
\hspace{1em}-0.75 & 0.237*** (0.06) & 58.57 & 0.214*** (0.054) & 71.98 & -0.023 (0.071)\\
\hspace{1em}-0.50 & 0.322*** (0.033) & 196.40 & 0.262*** (0.033) & 193.69 & -0.06 (0.046)\\
\hspace{1em}-0.25 & 0.412*** (0.025) & 344.97 & 0.279*** (0.025) & 339.50 & -0.134* (0.035)\\
\hspace{1em}0.00 & 0.603*** (0.021) & 496.93 & 0.397*** (0.021) & 496.93 & -0.207*** (0.03)\\
\hspace{1em}0.25 & 0.721*** (0.025) & 339.50 & 0.588*** (0.025) & 344.97 & -0.134* (0.035)\\
\hspace{1em}0.50 & 0.738*** (0.033) & 193.69 & 0.678*** (0.033) & 196.40 & -0.06 (0.046)\\
\hspace{1em}0.75 & 0.786*** (0.054) & 71.98 & 0.763*** (0.06) & 58.57 & -0.023 (0.071)\\
\hspace{1em}1.00 & 0.69 (0.114) & 16.10 & 0.78** (0.101) & 20.61 & 0.091 (0.158)\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Results including "conservative" and "very conservative" participants}}\\
\hspace{1em}-1.00 & 0.208** (0.1) & 21.09 & 0.367 (0.109) & 17.74 & 0.159 (0.155)\\
\hspace{1em}-0.75 & 0.243*** (0.058) & 62.07 & 0.261*** (0.052) & 79.49 & 0.019 (0.07)\\
\hspace{1em}-0.50 & 0.328*** (0.032) & 207.63 & 0.268*** (0.032) & 204.47 & -0.059 (0.045)\\
\hspace{1em}-0.25 & 0.416*** (0.024) & 355.09 & 0.285*** (0.025) & 348.42 & -0.131* (0.035)\\
\hspace{1em}0.00 & 0.602*** (0.02) & 507.22 & 0.398*** (0.02) & 507.22 & -0.204*** (0.03)\\
\hspace{1em}0.25 & 0.715*** (0.025) & 348.42 & 0.584*** (0.024) & 355.09 & -0.131* (0.035)\\
\hspace{1em}0.50 & 0.732*** (0.032) & 204.47 & 0.672*** (0.032) & 207.63 & -0.059 (0.045)\\
\hspace{1em}0.75 & 0.739*** (0.052) & 79.49 & 0.757*** (0.058) & 62.07 & 0.019 (0.07)\\
\hspace{1em}1.00 & 0.633 (0.109) & 17.74 & 0.792** (0.1) & 21.09 & 0.159 (0.155)\\
\addlinespace[0.3em]
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\textbf{Results using perceived congruence}}\\
\hspace{1em}-1.00 & 0.273** (0.075) & 38.76 & 0.123*** (0.068) & 46.60 & 0.15 (0.084)\\
\hspace{1em}-0.66 & 0.276*** (0.035) & 181.41 & 0.213*** (0.036) & 164.71 & 0.063 (0.046)\\
\hspace{1em}-0.34 & 0.362*** (0.023) & 405.69 & 0.278*** (0.023) & 422.47 & 0.084* (0.033)\\
\hspace{1em}0.00 & 0.589*** (0.018) & 641.47 & 0.411*** (0.018) & 641.47 & 0.178*** (0.027)\\
\hspace{1em}0.34 & 0.722*** (0.023) & 422.47 & 0.638*** (0.023) & 405.69 & 0.084* (0.033)\\
\hspace{1em}0.66 & 0.787*** (0.036) & 164.71 & 0.724*** (0.035) & 181.41 & 0.063 (0.046)\\
\hspace{1em}1.00 & 0.877*** (0.068) & 46.60 & 0.727** (0.075) & 38.76 & 0.15 (0.084)\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item \textit{Note: } 
\item $*p<0.05$; $**p<0.01$; $***p<0.001$. P-values for rates of support indicate significance of difference from 0.5. Congruence is scaled from -1 (opponent is perfectly congruent and candidate is as far as possible from the participant) to 1 (candidate is perfectly congruent and opponent is as far as possible from the participant). Data are weighted for representativeness by age, gender, and region. Data for the first two sets of results are from Lucid Study 2 and the California voter survey; data for the third set (perceived ideological congruence) are from Lucid Study 2 only.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
